He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not , shun him for he is a fool
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, Teach him that he should learn
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, Wake him for he is asleep
He who knows, and knows that he knows, Follow him for he is is a leader
Exasperation is how I would describe the feelings I have right now regarding the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama, but I refuse to give into hopelessness and despair. I’m in this for the long haul. Although it may be tempting to pick up my ball and go home, I would rather make the other poor bastard pick his ball up and go home—even if it is a long, hard slog.
Yesterday, as usual, I listened to my favorite conservative talk show personalities—folks like Rush Limbaugh, Dana Loesch and local radio host Greg Garrison—for their take on the reelection of Barack Obama and what it means for “moving forward.” I also talked to family members and friends to get their views as well. If there is one common consensus as to what went wrong for the GOP from the people I listened and talked to yesterday, I think Rush Limbaugh summed it up best: “It’s just very difficult to defeat Santa Claus.” People love free stuff. Well, I think greed and selfishness is a huge part of the problem in modern-day society. But it appears to me that there are a myriad of reasons why Obama is back at the helm again, in addition to a culture that demands instant gratification and cradle-to-grave entitlements.
I’ve believed for a very long time that liberals and conservatives seem to talk past each other. In psychology, the concept of personality types is a very important one—meaning: certain personality types are more prone to base their decision-making solely on intuition and feelings, as opposed to other personality types who may base their choices solely on cold, hard facts and logic—devoid of much emotion. In a nutshell, I’m referring to the touchy-feely type, for lack of a better term, versus the cold, calculating type. The point here is that it’s not that either personality type is wrong per se, but that they are simply different personality types who communicate in very different ways. What is required for two different personality types to communicate effectively is the need for the differing personality types to understand each other’s language.
A hypothetical example: it may be more effective to communicate with a touchy-feely personality type with pictures, song or dance, as opposed to handing them a field manual or spreadsheet. Conversely, the touchy-feely type may find communication is vastly improved with the cold, calculating type by avoiding the song & dance—just the facts, M’am.
Once again, from a purely psychological perspective, it’s not that either personality type is necessarily wrong—just different. Naturally, when communication breaks down between two disparate personality types conflict will ensue. I’m of the opinion that more touchy-feely types are attracted to the left-side of the political spectrum (democrat), while the more calculating types are attracted to the right-side politically (republican), thus the constant conflict between liberals and conservatives.
The fact of the matter is both personality types are needed and have their roles. A cold, calculating type devoid of much emotion typically doesn’t make a good actor or entertainer. It doesn’t mean they’re “bad”; they’re just not good at acting. On the flip-side, a more emotion-based personality may not make a good scientist or staff sergeant.
So, my final take on different personality types and their subsequent political affiliations: if one wishes to attract voters to their side, one must be conversant in the language of the target audience, otherwise you’re just wasting your time.
Republicans are failing to sell the message of Freedom & Liberty; they had better start thinking outside of the box and take seriously the role of culture and media to influence political opinion. The media and entertainment industry are dominated by liberals and progressives. So, the right is going to have to learn their language, or start their own major networks. Ignoring the role of culture and media in politics is to ignore the major factor that drives politics. The problems of society manifest themselves in the body politic. If the society is sick, then this will be reflected in the body politic, as I believe it is today.
Of course, there are those personalities who will cheat, steal, lie and kill to gain power and dominance over others. There is no “compromise” with said individuals; it’s their way or the highway. Many times, the only way to communicate with such individuals is by direct confrontation—force, if need be—just ask any experienced veteran or police officer. Some people just won’t back down until they are forced to do so—both figuratively and literally.
We are currently watching our republic being dismantled before our very eyes by Obama, the Democrats, a sycophant lapdog media, and an ill-informed electorate. Right off the top of my head I can think of three whoppers told by Barack Hussein Obama during the presidential campaign. The liberal media was more than happy to run interference for Obama in order to hide the truth from the American people.
First example: Candy Crowley providing cover for Obama during the third presidential debate by insisting that the president had referred to the attack on Benghazi as an “act of terror” when Mitt Romney brought up the issue. Now we’ve learned CBS News held on to video footage from a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft; whereby; Obama states that it was not an “act of terror” immediately following the Benghazi fiasco. Instead, Obama insisted that all the Middle East violence was sparked by an obscure YouTube video produced by a murky filmmaker who is now serving one year in a federal prison as a result of the protests that occurred all over the Islamic world on September 11, 2012.
Secondly, there is the issue of Obama promising to cut the federal deficit in half during his first year in office. The fact of the matter is Obama has doubled the deficit; he spent his first year in office ramming through the biggest entitlement in history—the healthcare bill (Affordable Care Act)—with zero bipartisan support … not one republican voted for Obamacare. Polling has consistently shown over the past four years that Obamacare is very unpopular with the populace at large.
Thirdly, Obama claims the god-awful sequestration bill would not entail dramatic cuts for the military, when, in fact, it is Obama’s law and is intended to do just that—gut the military! Even Bob Woodward stated on Sean Hannity’s show that he has all the proof and documentation that it was indeed Barack Obama who introduced sequestration in the first place. And if that blatant lie by Obama is not enough, Barack has gone on to accuse the Republicans of wanting to slash funding to FEMA, when, in fact, it is Obama’s sequestration law that calls for $900 million to be cut from FEMA, along with the draconian cuts to our military.
As if this sort of brazen deception and outright lying is not enough, dear leader has the unmitigated gall to make scurrilous and salacious accusations of felonies and murder against his political rival. It is more than obvious to me that Obama and his minions will stoop to any level if it means they will assume more political power. It’s all about winning with this bunch—nothing else matters. Decency and morality have no place in the world of the Alinskyites. It is an ideology completely driven by the notion that the means justify the predetermined ends—power for power’s sake alone. If you have not familiarized yourself with the writings of Saul Alinsky, then you will not fully appreciate how central the concept of “power for power’s sake” alone truly is to religiously devoted leftist radicals like Barack Hussein Obama.
If someone was blatantly lying to you, and lying about you, would you be “polite” about it? Would you sit there and try and ignore the lies and slander and look for good things about the person who is assassinating your character and reputation in a vain effort to assuage them? Or would you figuratively “tear them a new one”? This is the problem I see with the Republican party: they’re way too “polite” and don’t seem to know how to fight against a nasty and determined foe who is more than willing to engage in all sorts of nefarious tactics to get their way.
Ironically, I have regularly watched those on the right tear their own to shreds for years now, yet turn to milquetoast when confronted by their true foes. For example, many on the right have skewered Sarah Palin for nothing more than the tenor of her voice. If the Republican establishment is not willing to support those who attempt to support them, then the outcome should be obvious—division and defeat. The Democrats will circle their wagons around their own, regardless of whatever transgressions their own may be guilty of.
Conversely, many Republicans will turn on their own on a dime, then cite they did it out of “principle.” This is still politics and the purpose is to win. If we’re going to throw our own to the wolves, then we shouldn’t cry about the fact that we’ve lost political power. And let me be clear here: I’m not talking about compromising one’s principles to win; I’m talking about throwing your own under the bus for merely being frail human beings who do make mistakes from time to time. Before one goes off flapping their gob about their own, one should carefully consider the consequences of doing so.
The bottomline is there are some that can be won over if your message hits home; but there are others who will never be won over no matter what you do. Republicans are going to have to learn the difference. Some people are worth wooing and others just have to be defeated decisively, period—whatever it takes.
“If you can’t sell freedom and liberty, you suck!” — Andrew Breitbart